alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 389
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 389 appear at 66 FR 49873, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 389.5 Regulatory docket. ( a ) Information and data deemed relevant by the Administrator relating to rulemaking actions, including notices of proposed rulemaking; comments received in response to notices; petitions for rulemaking and reconsideration; denials of petitions for rulemaking and reconsideration; records of additional rule making proceedings under § 389.25; and final rules are maintained at headquarters, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
( b ) Except for material ordered withheld from the public under section 552(b) of title 5 of the United States Code, any person may examine docketed material in the Department of Transportation Docket Management Facility in the following ways: ( 1 ) At headquarters at any time during regular business hours. Copies may be obtained upon payment of a fee.
( 2 ) On the website *regulations.gov,* at any time, by using the uniform resources locator (URL) *https://www.regulations.gov .* Copies may be downloaded or printed.
[72 FR 55702, Oct. 1, 2007, as amended at 88 FR 80183, Nov. 17, 2023]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Alfacell  Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Robert D. Love,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      2.    The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: December 11, 2006

                                   /s/ Robert D. Love
                                   ------------------
                                   Name:  Robert D. Love
                                   Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer and
                                          Chief Accounting Officer)

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Alfacell  Corporation  and will be retained by Alfacell  Corporation
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
§ 557.6 Determination whether to hold a public hearing. ( a ) The Administrator considers the following factors in determining whether to hold a hearing: ( 1 ) The nature of the complaint;
( 2 ) The seriousness of the alleged breach of obligation to remedy;
( 3 ) The existence of similar complaints;
( 4 ) The ability of the NHTSA to resolve the problem without holding a hearing; and
( 5 ) Other pertinent matters.
( b ) If, after considering the above factors, the Administrator determines that a hearing should be held, the petition is granted. If it is determined that a hearing should not be held, the petition is denied. In either case, the petitioner is notified of the grant or denial not more than 60 days after receipt of the petition by the NHTSA.
( c ) If a petition submitted under this part is denied, a Federal Register notice of the denial is issued within 45 days of the denial, setting forth the reasons for it.
( d ) The Administrator may conduct a hearing under this part on his own motion.
1210-AB32-2-1628.html[7/26/2015 9:11:08 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 12, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jxz-j483

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2125

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Rebecca Bridges

General Comment

I'm smart enough to plan for my own retirement. Please do not put any more restrictions on my retirement.
EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY.

The following are wholly-owned subsidiaries of ThinkEngine Networks, Inc. at
December 31, 2006:

     1.   TE Networks, Inc. - a Delaware corporation
     2.   ThinkEngine Securities Corporation - a Delaware corporation (inactive)
     3.   Stamford Crescent Corporation - a Connecticut corporation (inactive)
     4.   Reed Printing, Inc. - a New York corporation (inactive) 5. American
          Computer Corporation - a New York corporation (inactive)

All of the above subsidiaries have been dissolved since December 31, 2006 by
merger into ThinkEngine Networks, Inc.
1210-AB32-2-1581.html[7/26/2015 8:33:31 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 12, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jxw-wmz8

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2078

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: David Harris

General Comment

I can choose my own retirement account. I don't need more regulations.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

December 21, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00814

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A.A. , minor child

From the 341st Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- FLD

- 001240

- D3
Honorable Selina Nava Mireles , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On December 5, 2022, appellant A.K.T. filed a notice of appeal challenging an order terminating her parental rights. The clerk’s record shows the trial court signed the order of termination on May 6, 2022. An appeal from an order terminating a parent

- chi ld relationship is governed by the rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4(a); see also T EX

. F AM

. C ODE §109.002(a

- 1). In an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal must be filed within twenty days after the judgment or order being appealed is signed, and this deadline is not extended by the filing of a post

- judgment motion. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.1(b); In r e K.A.F. , 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005); In re L.R.S ., No. 04

- 20

- 00507

- CV, 2020 WL 7365444, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Dec. 16, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re G.S ., No. 04

- 17

- 00237

- CV, 2017 WL 2457052, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio June 7, 2017 , no pet.) (mem. op.)). As a result, A.K.T.’s notice of appeal was due by May 26, 2022, or her notice of appeal and motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due fifteen days later. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1, 26.3; In re K.A.F ., 160 S.W.3d at 928; In re L.R.S ., 2020 WL 7365444, at *1; In re G.S. , 2017 WL 2457052, at *1.

Because A.K.T. did not file her notice of appeal until December 5, 2022, it appears late. We therefore order A.K.T. to show cause in writing by January 5, 2023 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.1(b). If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3; In re K.A.F ., 160 S.W.3d at 928 (affirming court of appeals dismissing parental termination for lack of jurisdiction when notice of appeal was untimely filed); In re L.R.S ., 2020 WL 7365444, at *1 (dismissing parental termination for lack of jurisdiction after notice of appeal was filed almost three months after order of termination was signed); In re G.S. , 2017 WL 2457052, at *1 (dismissing parental termination after notice of appeal was filed forty

- four days after order of termination was signed). If a supplementa l clerk’s record is required to establish this court’s jurisdiction, A.K.T. must ask the trial court clerk to prepare one and must notify the clerk of this court that such a request was made. All deadlines in this matter are suspended until
further order of the court.It is so ORDERED December 2 1 , 202 2

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
- Attachment1_commentWarren.pdf
- Attachment2_qfrsWarren.pdf
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 53 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 14382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06440]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Time and Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2015, 9:00 a.m. Eastern Time.

Place: Miami Dade College, 500 NE 2nd Avenue, Wolfson Conference 
Meeting Room #7128, Miami, Florida 33132.

Status: The meeting will be open to the public.

Matters to be Considered:
    Open Session:
    1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and
    2. EEOC at 50: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in the 
21st Century Workplace.

    Note:  In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be 
open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and 
voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission 
meetings in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides 
information about Commission meetings on its Web site, 
www.eeoc.gov., and provides a recorded announcement a week in 
advance on future Commission sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at 
any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign 
language interpretation and Communication Access Realtime Translation 
(CART) services at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. 
Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the 
voice and TTY numbers listed above. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE 
INFORMATION: Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 
663-4077.

    Dated: March 17, 2015.
Bernadette B. Wilson,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2015-06440 Filed 3-17-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
```
#### William H. Waring, Respondent, *v.*Moses Chamberlain, *Appellant*.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1367.html[7/23/2015 6:24:15 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvl-e8ij

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1367

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Kathleen Cote'

General Comment

Please Mr. President,

Respectfully requesting that you stay out of my pocketbook and business. God created me with the ability to

 reason,

and therefore to use my brain to take care of myself. Thanks.

Sincerely,

A nurse who is struggling to save enough to retire,

Kathleen
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 213 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         July 31, 2001.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2647) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 4(c) of rule XIII are waived. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. Points of 
order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 
XXI are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. 
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: moneygrows [mailto:moneygrows@knology.net] 

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 11:03 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Cc: moneygrows@knology.net

Subject: Fiduciary rule changes

Please be aware that we service several thousand clients thst have accumulated over 30 years 

with us. If this rule passes it will probably cause most of these clients to not any longer be served 

due to such high administrative cost and risk(due to the proposed fiduciary ruling if passed in its 

current form). This will be a disgrace and form of social control that will hurt the clients on the 

lower end(less than 250k). Its a shame our government could allow(once again) for the most 

unfortunate to suffer just to help out the "well to do". Please disregard the special interest group's 

and allow the unfortunate to continue being able to receive excellent service on their retirement 

plans. Please consider our precious clients and our situation.

Yours Truly,

Earnest Financial LLC

2762A Bell Road

Montgomery,Al 36117

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S®4
(May 12, 1913.)

#### SAMUEL J. RICH, Plaintiff, v. FRED L. HUSTON, State Auditor, Defendant.

[132 Pac. 112.]

Original action for writ of mandate.

Writ granted.

Edwin Snow, for Petitioner.

The statutory provisions applicable to the cause at bar (sec. 1418 and sec. Ill together) fulfill the precise conditions necessary to constitute a continuing appropriation.

They “fix the compensation, the time of payment, and authorize the controller to draw his warrant to pay the same *35when due. No further appropriation is required.” *(Gilbert v. Moody,*3 Ida. 3, 25 Pac. 1092.)

Sec. Ill specifically authorizes the auditor to issue his warrant for fixed salary claims, and the fact that the legislature made no specific appropriation for the current period would not excuse the auditor from issuing his warrant. *(Kingsbury 'v. Anderson,*5 Ida. 771, 51 Pac. *7AL.)*

J. H. Peterson, Attorney General, and *J. J.*Guheen and T. O. Coffin, Assistants, for the State,

cite same authorities as in *Reed v. Huston, ante,*p. 26, 132 Pac. 109.

AILSITIE, C. J.

This case involves the same question just decided in *Reed v. Huston, ante,*p. 26, 132 Pac. 109.

The plaintiff Rich served as commissioner of immigration, labor and statistics during the month of March, 1913, immediately preceding the commencement of the services of Commissioner Reed, and has not been paid his salary for the same reason that Reed was not paid his salary. Plaintiff herein presented his bill and demanded a warrant for his salary, and the auditor refused for the same reasons that he refused to issue a warrant to Commissioner Reed. Upon the authority of *Reed v. Huston, supra,*the writ prayed for in this case will issue. No costs awarded.

Sullivan and Stewart, JJ., concur.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 207

Designating minority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 25, 2001

Mr. FROST submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating minority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Member be, and

2 is hereby, elected to the following standing committee of

3 the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES: Mr. Larsen of

5 Washington.

Æ
#### § 552.8 Notification of agency action on the petition.

After considering the technical review conducted under § 552.6, and taking into account appropriate factors, which may include, among others, allocation of agency resources, agency priorities and the likelihood of success in litigation which might arise from the order, the Administrator will grant or deny the petition. NHTSA will notify the petitioner of the decision to grant or deny the petition within 120 days after its receipt of the petition.

[60 FR 17267, Apr. 5, 1995]
May 23, 2009 

To: Rep. Tom Price 

RE: Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity & Addiction 

 Equity Act of 2008 & 

 Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022 

 Page19157, II B Areas 1 and 4 

I am a licensed counselor and certified biofeedback therapist who provides counseling 

and biofeedback services to those with headaches, anxiety, chronic pain syndrome and 

other conditions. Biofeedback & neurofeedback have been proven to help headaches, 

anxiety, ADHD and many other disorders, yet Georgia Medicaid and most insurers 

continue to deny coverage. This is a limitation of an effective and valid treatment for a 

mental health problem. 

Based on legal reviews of the parity statute, parity regulations should require employers 

and insurance plans to pay for the same range and scope of services for Behavioral 

Treatments as they do for Medical and Surgical benefits. Today plans are more 

restrictive in how they review evidence based Mental Health and Substance Abuse 

treatments when compared to Medical Surgical treatments. This violates both the intent 

and the letter of the parity statute, and my colleagues and I hope that the regulations will 

clarify that this cannot continue. 

Thank you for helping Georgians to access these much needed health care services. 

Sincerely, 

Denise Olive, LLC, MS, LPC, BCIAC 

Dolive76@bellsouth.net
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.153 How does the MRO notify employees of their right to a test of the split specimen? ( a ) As the MRO, when you have verified a drug test as positive for a drug or drug metabolite, or as a refusal to test because of adulteration or substitution, you must notify the employee of his or her right to have the split specimen tested. You must also notify the employee of the procedures for requesting a test of the split specimen.
( b ) You must inform the employee that he or she has 72 hours from the time you provide this notification to him or her to request a test of the split specimen.
( c ) You must tell the employee how to contact you to make this request. You must provide telephone numbers or other information that will allow the employee to make this request. As the MRO, you must have the ability to receive the employee's calls at all times during the 72 hour period (*e.g.,* by use of an answering machine with a “time stamp” feature when there is no one in your office to answer the phone).
( d ) You must tell the employee that if he or she makes this request within 72 hours, the employer must ensure that the test takes place, and that the employee is not required to pay for the test from his or her own funds before the test takes place. You must also tell the employee that the employer may seek reimbursement for the cost of the test (see § 40.173).
( e ) You must tell the employee that additional tests of the specimen *e.g.,* DNA tests) are not authorized.
#### Harvey's Estate.

*Auditor*— Findings *of fact*— Orphans’ *court*— Attorney’s *fee.*

The findings of fact of an auditor appointed to ascertain and determine the amount of compensation due to an attorney for an estate, will not be reversed by an appellate court, where such findings are based on sufficient evidence, and have been approved by the orphans’ court.

Argued Oct. 27, 1914.

Appeal, No. 69, Oct. T., 1914, by defendant, from decree of O. C. Northumberland Co., Sept. T., 1912, No. 19, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in Estate of John Harvey, deceased.

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.

Affirmed.

Exceptions to report of Jefferson Shipman, Esq., auditor.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*William J. Brady,*with him *John C. Grady*and *James A. Comeford,*for appellant.

*Voris Auten,*with him *L. S. Walter*and *F. H. Strouss,*for appellee.

*450April 19, 1915:

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

The auditor appointed in this case was directed by his commission “to ascertain and determine the amount of compensation due one William B. Faust, Esq., as attorney for the estate and to restate the account.”

The hearing before the auditor took a much wider scope than was authorized by the order of the court, but on final hearing on exceptions filed to the report of the auditor it was properly confined to the only issue presented, and the exceptions were overruled and the report confirmed.

After a full examination of the record we are not disposed to disturb the finding of facts by the auditor, which were approved by the orphans’ court as they resulted from the consideration of disputed facts founded on oral testimony. After full hearing, the auditor has arrived at conclusions' of law which are fully sustained by the authorities.

It was the undoubted right of the administrator to resist the claim of one who alleged he was acting as his counsel and the confirmation of the account fully protects him in that matter.

In restating the account, the balance in the hands of the accountant was determined, and the proper costs incident to that controversy may be disposed of on the final distribution of the fund.

The decree is affirmed.